Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 15 December	17 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete - G3 (non-admin closure) . Whpq (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adult surrealism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It looks like this genre of art limits itself currently to one artist, Jonathan Osman/sunderlandartstuden, and hasn't received much attention. I heave found nothing, and I think this genre should be out of the scope of Wikipedia, per WP:MADEUP. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lithoderm 01:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this unsourced it's incoherent. I have no idea what the article creator is attempting to say. In any case, there is no indication of notability here. freshacconci talktalk 02:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced, not notable, original research, non-existant art movement...Modernist (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RHR International LLP

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article which does not establish notability. Having a bunch of large clients does not establish notability. Most of the references are unusable or otherwise poor;

1, 2, 4, 10 are simply articles by the companies CEO
3 is simply an article by a partner at the company
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 only mention the company once or twice in passing.
12 is a book listing on Amazon
and 13 is sourced to a site associated with RHR itself.

As for promotional, just read this (from the article lede): "is a firm of management psychologists and consultants who work closely with senior level management, especially the C-suite, for the purpose of accelerating individual, team and business performance." OSborn^arf_contribs. 22:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Promotional nonsense walking on stilts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bad UBLP, no doughnut. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Jae Broadbent

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unreferenced BLP, tagged for lack of notability 2 years ago. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources and BLP violation as well as notability. It is alarming that nobody seems to have questioned the inclusion of unsupported information about her educational and medical history which has been present since the start. Her alleged notability is as a singer/songwriter but there is little about that in comparison. Even if the subject had talked openly about such matters in the past the very nature of the condition from which she is alleged to suffer means that there should be a strong presumption in favour of privacy. --AJHingston (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. And also because I can find no sourcing to establish notability. -- 14:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete - A7 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downlow'd

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no reliable sources to support claims of notability. Author deleted prodblp notice and added sources from Facebook (twice). NawlinWiki (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:yes the artilce is non noteable and references are not very clear.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Insight

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not been able to find sufficient independent, third party, non trivial RS coverage of this consulting company to support a finding of notability. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability for well over 3 years. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Consensus is that the sources found demonstrate notability. These need to be incorporated into the article as citations. Michig (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josenid

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find sufficient RS non-trivial coverage of this 13-year-old singer. Tagged for notability since she was 12 years old. Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and more in a Google News search. The translator is screwy. Sometimes Josenid is called she, but she is usually called he. Josenid was even called both she and he in a couple articles. SL93 (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me with this -- the article speaks only of Josenid, but your refs are to Josen. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original untranslated articles says Josend. Josend translates to Josen with Google Translate. SL93 (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. Thanks. Did you mean that the original was Josenid? You mention yet a third spelling above (Josend), but perhaps you meant the article name?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Josenid. I found all of the sources by searching "Josenid" in a Google News search. Search. SL93 (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate - Josenid to Josen. SL93 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SL93. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SL93 has found reliable sources for this. Dr

eam Focus 21:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agreed that there seems to be substantial information found since the original discussion by SL93. Needs serious updating. AlphaSur (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kodava family Chottemanda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find evidence of notability in RSs. Tagged as such for over 2 years. Created by an SPA. (Don't be confused by the "in progress" tag -- it has been there for many months). Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence of notability for this family -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no actual claim of notability in article (winning school awards at age 13 isn't one). NawlinWiki (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Smigmator

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable musician, who graduated from a music conservatory 3 years ago. Zero refs in the article. Tagged since August for lack of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malini Yugendran

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this person no doubt exists, I can't find RS non-trivial coverage to the degree required to meet our notability threshold. Tagged for notability for well over 2 years. The author is an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about her. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Maartmann

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer. Tagged for over a year for lack of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is this article in Korean which machine translation turns to gibberish so I am unable to evaluate. Discogs indicates she has put out two albums on a minor label, and a single on BMG Sweden. Looks like a working musician. As an added bonus, according to her web site, she is available for church weddings, funerals, and bpatisms. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete: The current substantive content is "Ann Maartmann is a Swedish singer, songwriter. Her works include Reconciliation, and Swedish Gold and the CD single "Om Ändå Du". She is currently featured on Sensitive Records." This is not substantial, and makes no claim to notability, so deletion is not doing much harm here. In addition, there was an article on her on the Swedish wikipedia which was deleted in 2010, per the talk page discussion which still exists sv:Diskussion:Ann_Maartmann, it appears Maartmann may have requested deletion, and it was agreed that she wasn't really notable. There's a great little English article (probably not WP:RS) summarizing her career here [6], looks like she had one major label single and was dropped before her album came out, and has released at least two albums through indie/self-created means, so we can't fall back on the two-major-label album rule of thumb. Her music [7] reminds me of Basia a bit.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Chuan Food Industry Sdn Bhd

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am having difficulty finding non-primary-source, non-trivial, RS coverage of this company, sufficient to support a finding of notability. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability for over a year, and for being an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are assertions of notability but they are not backed with reliable sources. Their site has a press page but those look like a photo-op for a politician, and a bunch of paid advertising. Perhaps there are sources that aren't in English. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Diaz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find sufficient indicia of RS non-trivial coverage, to reflect notability. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the sourcing indicates notability and I don't find anything in searching to change that. Shadowjams (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A review of her movie roles on IMDB shows her only playing the part of un-named dancers. The strongest assertion of notability is a part in the play, Dirty Dancing, but all I can find are mentions in her name as being a member of the ensemble like this, and this. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gizwiz Studio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This design studio appears to lack the non-trivial RS coverage that would reflect notability. Tagged for notability (and for being written like an advert) for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I'm a bit dubious about all the listed awards as well. The 2009 Selected as the "best value" design service provider by Wall Street Journal is in fact not an award, and the company isn't named as per this WSJ article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FlexiMusic Wave Editor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found a bunch of trivial mentions, but no notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This review was the only significant coverage I could find, and it alone does not establish notability. Chris (talk | contribs) 20:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to find reviews, but aside from the above Top Ten Reviews (which I'm not totally sure is a notable review in itself, as the site aggregates from elsewhere on the web), the only other reviews I could find were user generated ones on cnet. So regrettably I don't think it can pass WP:RS. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Much as i liked to read the article, the keep arguments do amount only to ILIKEIT., and no matter how many people say that here, it's not a policy based reason, It's not that often I agree with the nom, but his reasons for deletion are correct policy. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. This article essentially is a quote farm that collects a series of quotations from Christopher Hitchens berating various public figures, living and dead.

I looked, and the very long Wikiquote entry seems to have almost all of these already. Any that are missing might be added.

There isn't much analysis, discourse, or reaction concerning these quotations. Most of them just say that Hitchens had something bad to say about a public figure. Longer entries just say that he said so in several places. The only entry that comes close to containing encyclopedia information is the portion on Mother Teresa; since this was forked away from the main biographical article, portions of that could be unforked back.

As a stand alone article, this may also violate the undue weight principle by suggesting that Hitchens was just some kind of troll whose public career consisted of badmouthing people. Of this, I am less sure. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hitchens a troll? Deletion would be absurd. This man's critiques are more important than his own existence. --KenWalker | Talk 07:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FWIW, I didn't mean to call him a troll, but rather to point out the impression that a page devoted to his invective against specific people created. He wrote strong prose, he admired George Orwell, and he was on the side of plain English, and that's my side. The more serious issue is whether this belongs here or at Wikiquote. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a coatrack for attacks on people, many of whom are still living. It seems contrary to core policy and WP:NOTOPINION. Warden (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTOPINION applies to WP editors and not to the opinions (with very good justification in this case - in my opinion) of the people that we write about. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a place to publish Hitchens' opinions either. There are many such journalists who earn a living by expressing outrageous opinions — Jeremy Clarkson, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, P. J. O'Rourke, &c. Their work is exaggerated for effect and is often satirical, tongue-in-cheek, polemical or just plain wrong. It is quite unreliable as factual comment and so should not be presented verbatim in this way. By publishing a collation of such writings as reading material rather than to illustrate the author's bio, we are infringing the author's copyright. This is contrary to the policy WP:IINFO which states "articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents.". Wikipedia is not Reader's Digest. Warden (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question? How much is too much at Wikiquote? I proposed transwiki-ing and deleting this because I thought the gist of it could be preserved there. Much of it seems to be already. But I have not made a close study of their policies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hitchens is in a totally different league to the other writers that you mention (don't know a lot about P. J. O'Rourke though). The article could be stripped down and then shoehorned into the Christopher Hitchens article but that would be a retrograde step. It is a notable topic in its own right and it therefore should have its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Warden, Wikipedia is not a place to publish Hitchens' opinions either you say -- a) has nothing to do with your NOTOPINION claim, and b) yes we can publis his opinion, when acceptable in the encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up as per the recommendation by the nominator. It is a notable topic that can justify its own article. As already noted Hitchens is far from being a troll and reading the main article confirms this. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COI statement: I am a strong admirer of Hitchens work. 22:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll keep an eye on you. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep after clean up. It is a charming intro to an opinionated but sharp mind. It reveals perhaps the need for a new Wiki-project "Wiki-memorials". Shrines which may be freely embellished by devotees, each bearing their favorite citations as votive offerings to the eternal spirit enshrined there. Am sure CH would oppose the religious tones of my quite seriously meant comment. The project would eliminate the need for NOR restriction.Idealist707 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would strenuous oppose any sort of Wiki-memorial. There are other places out there on the web for that sort of thing. We should keep the project side of WP neutral as we do with the articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ^^ This. No, we should not make Wiki-memorials. The real issue for me is: is this an encyclopedia article? Or is it a collection of quotations, for which we have a separate project? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is without a doubt a notable enough topic for WP. I agree that the quotes should be removed and as a critique it should also include the public figures that Hitchens wrote about in a positive light. There is a lot of material that can be added to the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a specific policy, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which prohibits such shrines. Warden (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from NPOV, the article is a WP:SOAP and WP:NOTADVOCATE can of worms; from what I see, there was no significant response to the critiques. The article can be summarized in the existing relevant section and all other quotations can be moved to Wikiquote. Brandmeister t 11:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per nom. As far as I'm aware, we don't do 'list of criticisms of public figures by X' for any other person on Wikipedia. And with good reason: as the nominator notes, this is basically the job for Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. Frankly, the very existence of this page raises issues of undue weight and NPOV: why single out Hitchens' criticisms in this way when we don't do that for anybody else? And, if we are going to do that, why does this article include the specific individuals it does? Hitchens criticised hundreds of people, and this article could be many times longer than it is; hence there's an unresolvable POV issue about who to include, which just supports the view that the article itself is a bad idea. Ultimately, this article is redundant to Christopher Hitchens's political views. A selective summary of his views on certain people could be included in that article, but there's really no need at all for a separate article on the subject. Robofish (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So OK, elsewhere we don't do such an overview. But since Hitchens andserious critiques did, it is an acceptable line of an article. For others, like generals, we do a list of battles &tc. That is NPOV too. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a crucial piece of any coverage of Hitchens. There might be an argument for merging it into a single article on Hitchens, but if we did choose that, the content here is so significant that it would have to be preserved pretty much unchanged. The editorial structure of the encyclopedia though is clearer with this separate, as now. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a list of opinions by an essayist, not an encyclopedia article. His bio and bibliography should describe what is contained in his published works, but we don't need to republish directly every argument the man ever made. Steven Walling • talk 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I will describe below when !voting: his serial arguments with individuals, often personal, can be lined up in the encyclopedia. Agree, his line of arguments should be published elsewhere, not here (OR). -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christopher Hitchens - not really sensible as a stand-alone article. --Slashme (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The practice by some Wikipedians to scrub the site of viewpoints they disagree with is flat-out disgusting, and all too common. Hitchens' critiques are an important part of the human historical record, and more than worthy of being indexed, whether you agree with them or not. --Phrost (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much encyclopedicity in "Hitchens said/wrote so and so", especially when no factual evaluation of his claims is presented. Hitchens isn't some kind of superpundit who stands above all others, meriting a separate page on his critiques. Brandmeister t 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Brandmeister. So if the thread through his arguments with a person is published & discussed elsewhere, that is a good reason such an argument be in the Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll cheerfully admit that I'm not a fan of Hitchens, although he was a quite quotable writer. I'm not even proposing that the quotations be removed from the project entirely. The only issue for me is whether this is really an encyclopedia article, or something that should be merged to his page at Wikiquote. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reason as Steven Walling - are we really expected to create separate articles listing the opinions of every journalist/writer? Look at his brother Peter Hitchens' article - his views have been condensed to a single article without the need for a separate one. Why not the same for the elder Hitchens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint91 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag to replace any OR with RS. In his career there are multiple threads with persons. These threads are not alway made explicit by himself or in his books & pieces. But when a serious critique/scholar/publisher points out that thread, that is enough RS (not OR) to merit a description here. E.g. (and missing here): his lines with Blair, Edward Said, Blumenthal [8]. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Long quote farm. Any relevant material may be included in the main biographical article. It would be absurd to have a series of articles on "[Insert political figure, media personality, or public intellectual here]'s critiques of public figures" when that could run into the hundreds or thousands. Best to consolidate all material. Neutrality^talk 08:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I noticed this when first listed and have been keeping an eye on it, so it is time to make a decision. I am a strong fan of Hitchens, but there is no case for this article. Quotes go in Wikiquote. There may be a case for a few quotes to be in the article on him, but how do we decide which quotes? So, there is already a link to Wikiquote. Make sure that all the quotes in this article are there, but that is it. We are wikipedia not wikiquote. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather more than mere "quotes". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came on this page after reading the article about Hitchens, specifically looking for some informations on his public figures critiques, and was glad to see that a specific article was linked to such topic; I believe to be a very "average" wikipedia user, so it is very likely that what happened to me by chance would happen also to many other readers who are not aware of this deletion prosal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.109.78 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (perhaps with a line or two merged appropriately to Christopher Hitchens. Ask yourself: "Is this an encyclopedic topic?" Would something like Bill O'Reilly's critiques of public figures or Michael Moore's critiques of public figures be similarly appropriate? If so, where does one draw the line on who's colorful opinions are encyclopedically appropriate and who's are not? This honestly doesn't meet muster on any grounds other than WP:ILIKEIT... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my !vote to keep above: the topic is encyclopedic. His line of treating individual persons, throughout his career and publicly, is encyclopedic. All we need is RS not OR about that line. (note: good action to Relist it). -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I just gotta say, I hear all this talk about quotes, quotes, quotes. Just notice that if you delete all the quotes, you still have a pretty substantial article by Wikipedia standards. And yeah, there's a lot more to Hitchens than this but this definitely was one of the most noted parts of his work. --Qwerty0 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Born to Die (song). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Born To Die (song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable future release musical single per WP:CRYSTAL, I redirected per WP:NSONGS which was reverted by article creator. Mo ainm~Talk 20:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mo ainm~Talk 20:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe once it is released it will become notable, but it definitely does not pass GNG or WP:NSONGS right now. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Released in about 5 weeks, and has already received plenty of coverage: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Given the massive interest in Lana Del Rey, the chances of it not generating further coverage are nil, so why bother deleting it only to have it recreated in a few weeks. Leave it and let it grow into a proper article.--Michig (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same editor has created this article twice. The other one existed at its correct title of Born to Die (song) but was turned into a redirect (rightly or wrongly) until notability could be established. After that, the guy just wrote it again at this title (with the crap capitalisation). Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources provided are about the video release. Mo ainm~Talk 11:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, the article's about the song, not the video, and having a video doesn't make the song notable. I'm sure it will become notable, but I don't think that merits an article now. Recreate it when the time comes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. No charts, no awards, a single music video is not enough to sustain an article unless the song itself has received enough coverage from the press. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 14:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born to Die (song). changed vote. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already redirected it per WP:NSONGS it was reverted. Mo ainm~Talk 20:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We now have two articles about the song. The other one (Born to Die (song)) is better than this one, so I agree we should redirect there. --Michig (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how does the other one pass Crystal or NSONGS? Mo ainm~Talk 21:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone voted for deletion claiming it fails two guidelines, then immediately re-created the original article and changed his vote. Not terribly helpful, as now we have two articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS via coverage. Have a read of WP:CRYSTAL - it also passes that. While it's unfortunately common for some to misinterpret it as stating that anything with a release date in the future shouldn't have an article, it doesn't say that. It discusses "unverifiable speculation". The only 'future' part of this is the release date, which is verifiable.--Michig (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have an article on each of these diseases. This appears to be a co-tract. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Yes exactly. Permutation articles like this are a scourge... nuke it before it multiplies. Shadowjams (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:Content forking; nothing for which an article does not already exist.Novangelis (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - reasons for deletion nomination are not valid. This is clearly an article documenting the controversy between the global burden of diseases as outlined by WHOGlobal Burden of Disease and the actual priority diseases in global health programs. (Global Fund, Gates)These three diseases serve this function together and not as individual diseases so individual disease pages are not adequate. Author is presenting and citing extant controversy that some may want to censor through deletion. Author takes neutral stance to controversy. Reasons for deletion not substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdwbream (talk • contribs)
Delete Covers three separate topics which already have existing articles. The content of this article does not make the case that the three topics converge in some notable way that might warrant a fourth separate article. ChemNerd (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trident Entertainment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find RS coverage of this media company that would support a determination of notability. One-sentence, un-referenced stub. Tagged for notability for well over a year. Authored by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero reliable sources. Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by OrangeMike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. The rationale for deletion given in the log seems out of process to me (no speedy criteria was given), so I have no prejudice against this AfD being reopened if any admin believes the speedy deletion was unwarranted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Caricature

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declining A7... if the company really has done work for WWE and Chase Bank then there is likely a claim to notability. Definitely fails WP:V right now - I say give the author and the community a few days to see if they can dig up some sources and clean up the WP:POV and WP:SPAM John Daker (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect, and List of minor Doctors characters (2011) is the article that has the most detail already. There is no sourced content to merge, but I will leave it to any interested editors to merge any information that they deem appropriate. Michig (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Bonnaire

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short article that adds almost nothing to List of Doctors characters. Merge seems the best option. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better served within the main List of Doctors characters article. Merge any additional information and delete. John Daker (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of minor Doctors characters (2011). Minor character, not note worthy on its own. Rgds, --2.101.116.128 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep due to improved sourcing. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply due to sourcing, and meets WP:N due to improved sourcing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rendavathu Padam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Crystal and rather promotional. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 12:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's wrong with the article? It has several reliable, third party sources, principal photography has commenced, no POV... What else? Johannes003 (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No movie? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I didn't understand! What do you mean? Johannes003 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Night of the Big Wind means that the movie has not been released as of this point. Folgertat (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:NFF, a future film may have an article if principal photgraphy has commenced and the production itself is notable. This film is notable, several notable, reliable, secondary, independent sources have been added. Johannes003 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm normally very liberal--some people say much too liberal--about notability of software, particularly open source software, which is one of Wikipedia's specialties, but there has to be some 3rd party sourcing--this is really a basic rule for product articles in general. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol (software)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Only web and book hits on "bristol software" and "bristol synth" are self referential. No reviews or third party comments, let alone anything notable. The software home page has a link "wiki" directly referring to this page, which fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. The article is, despite the efforts of several, still too jargon heavy and not really appropriate for a summary, which fails WP:NOTMANUAL. Ritchie333 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article would definitely need a lot of cleanup. But we should look for notability. Is a sourceforge project with some 45000 downloads over last 5 years. It seems to get frequent mention on linux related sites. It is included in the List of Linux audio software, and I looked at some of the other articles in the synthesizers category. Many are equally poorly sourced, e.g Din (din is noise), Gnaural, FluidSynth... Group delete? Or keep all? MakeSense64 (talk)

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. I can see how one would think that Bristol is not notable, if one is unfamiliar with open-source audio software. Attaining clear notability is a long, uphill climb for many such projects. Few will ever get the kind of coverage routinely devoted to products with big marketing budgets. In accordance with WP:FAILN, I suggest placing a {{notability}} tag on the article, rather than jumping straight to the "delete" option. Also in accordance with WP:FAILN, as an alternative to deletion, we should consider merging Bristol (software) into a (hypothetical) more general article about open-source synth software. SoCalDonF (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. FWIW I have used Bristol in the past (though only sporadically as my Nord Stage keyboard produces far better sounds out of the box, in my opinion). I should point out that I addressed concerns about this article three and a half years ago, and there hasn't been any real progress from that. My concerns about the Bristol project page referring to this article as if it were its own official documentation page (Wikipedia is not a web hosting service) haven't really been addressed. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW I use Bristol occasionally, and find its B3 emulation satisfactory for my purposes. But that is beside the point. I agree that ~~the~~ Bristol's notability is not established per Wikipedia's guidelines, but suggest that we consider alternatives to the "nuclear bomb" of article deletion. While I do see some problems with the article's content, most of the content is encyclopedic (though admittedly not well sourced). It does not read like a user manual. (A user manual would include information about how to build and install the software; how to connect a MIDI keyboard; how to select, modify, and save patches; etc.) The issue regarding the way an external site links to the Wikipedia article should be taken up with the owner(s) of the external site, IMO. Regards, SoCalDonF (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some specific pieces that jar with me and don't fit with what I would consider to be a cursory introduction to the program include the sentence "The application consists of two multithreaded programs, the audio engine and GUI, running in separate processes communicating via TCP" and the entire section on "User interface architecture". As an end user of the project, if the program was single threaded and only ran on Windows, but otherwise emulated the instruments to the same sound quality, it would be equally useful. I don't need to know any of this unless I'm actually developing the program itself. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I noticed that, too, and I agree completely. SoCalDonF (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, delete this page if you so see if. I posted it because _your bloody site_ was referencing bristol (software), that reference was not my decision, but it might have been to mine to post the page to help expand the coverage of your damn encyclopedia. I have donated to your site, not that that is relevant however the fact that people donate knowledge to this site and that your stasi's try and delist the parts that they cannot understand concerns me. Just because you do not understand what is posted (and you already cropped 90% of what I submitted) does not mean that nobody is interested. This app does have a following but get of your mangy old horses and either delist or forget 'keeping the bits about the hammond' because you old farts can understand that bit, but not the rest.

I think I will go and delete the whole page, and perhaps ask for my money back.

assholes.

Comment Vandalising the page will win you no friends. In your situation, I would have created my own documentation website containing technical information, and ensured the product saw some reviews eg: in a magazine that would have established notability. --Ritchie333 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's an interesting article that extends the encyclopedia with useful coverage of software emulated synths. The nominator's accusation of WP:NOTWEBHOST is ridiculous. We don't discourage other sites linking to WP! The developer's site is already extensive and they certainly don't need WP. WP rather benefits instead from their efforts, in gifting us this article. We have been extremely churlish in how we've reacted to an editor who doesn't need to do this, did it from their own generosity of time and effort, and managed to stay clear of the usual crappy hype that COI is really a guard against. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response This argument is flawed. Linking to Wikipedia is fine; linking to a Wikipedia article and presenting that article as an official part of another website is not. I suspect if I created a Wikipedia page for some of my open source projects, and included technical instructions on its architecture, that weren't of general interest, it wouldn't even survive a speedy delete. FWIW I have created pages in the past myself that have subsequently failed an AfD review and been deleted, but I haven't taken it personally. I would furthermore point out that I have given constructive reasons to my thoughts above, and unlike the author, have avoided personal abuse and foul language. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The home site is extensive - too big for me to bother counting pages. It has, AFAICS, one link to this article. You are wholly misrepresenting their use of WP by claiming that they're mis-using WP to provide hosting for a manual.

I would also question your interpretation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. If I was to build a framed site, wrap up a WP page on toast in my own page header and banner adverts for toasters, that would still never become a reason for AfD/Toast. We should never make decisions on a page here on the basis of how it's being used or mis-used elsewhere - let alone whether GFDL would even allow us to. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies if the WP content is being used as a substitute for someone else hosting their own site (or to be fair, pages). Given the extensive size of the official site, there's no suspicion of this.

I regret the tone of the editor's responses, but given the provocation they've had, I see them as quite understandable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response If I look at the Bristol Home Page, I see a menu at the bottom; one of the options is "Wiki". There is no mention that this link goes to Wikipedia, or indeed that it has anything to do with Wikipedia at all, until you click on it. This gives me the impression that the author did not want to pay for his own website and decided to reuse data hosted by Wikipedia for his own personal gain. That is the opinion I formed when I first encountered the software in around 2007, and it is still my opinion now that the technical information on this article should belong on a separate page separate from Wikipedia. Why does somebody wanting to know what the product does need to know about its multi-threaded architecture or X11 dependencies?

My challenge to you now is to find some reliable sources for this article and link them in here. You will stand a better chance of getting the article kept if you can do this.

Please can you also point out where I have personally provoked and insulted Mr Copeland and I will apologise and retract the comments. I regret to inform you that resorting to abusive language is never excusable, particularly on the internet where you have all the time in the world to form a constructive argument. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't speak for anyone other than myself, I feel I must try to help out here. I don't think you intended to provoke anyone, but your initial comment might perhaps fail WP:AGF, depending on how one reads it. I'm afraid that Mr Copeland (assuming it really is him, who knows?) took things a bit more personally than we should have hoped. Your references to WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTWEBHOST may have been particularly offensive. (I read those sections carefully, and I don't see how this article runs afoul of either of them.) Some people don't "get" what Wikipedia is about, but that in itself is no reason to denigrate their contributions, if they are made in good faith. SoCalDonF (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. An example of an offensive remark would have been "Your software is awful and your website makes my head hurt." (Please note this isn't actually what I think at all!) I would point out I addressed the concerns I made at the top of this AfD nomination in the summer of 2008, and I assumed since few people had passed comment in the three and a half years since then, and nobody for the past year, that nobody was interested in fixing the issues, and perhaps silently dropping the page would be a better solution. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The offense, if any, is in the perception, not necessarily in the intention. As I said, I don't think you intended to provoke anyone. BTW, I'm trying to find sources. I agree with you that reliable sources will vastly improve this article. SoCalDonF (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page as it stands now looks much better than before. If somebody can find reliable sources and link them, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it now stands is devoid of content and worthless - it should be either restored to the useful version, or else deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The older version may still be deleted as, to repeat what I said upthread, nobody has come forward with reliable sources. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The article isn't the way I like it" isn't and shouldn't be a criteria for deletion, as far as I know, and as I understand the notability guidelines no amount of unverifiable information will make a subject notable, just amount of need for cleanup, rewriting, or expansion will take away from a subject's notability once established. For my part, I've searched Ebsco, Gale, and Proquest databases using multiple variations on terms and the broadest parameters possible and found no coverage. I regret the hurt feelings and frustration some folks including the article's creator may feel, but based on my findings I would have to recommend the article be deleted. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jordan (entrepreneur)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not the subject of substantial coverage by independent third-party reliable sources and thus fails WP:GNG. It seems significant coverage only appears in unreliable sources (WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS), and sources that are more reliable give only trivial coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 16:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Poking through the Google resuls, I couldn't find any and doubt they exist. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self promotion. No significant treatment by reliable sources.— Racconish^Tk 07:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luxor (pen manufacturer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be about a non-notable company. Only 'references' appear to be the company's own site and some advertisements. Stedrick (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE WAIT FOR 2 WEEKS ... I am having my college exams , therefore can't improve this article or participate in this discussion right now. But I promise we can continue this discussion after 2 weeks after my exams are over. Jain.dhrj (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be okay with userfying it until then? The article would be transferred into your userspace, and would otherwise be unchanged. You can feel free to edit it as much as you want there. When you think it is ready, you can transfer it back to main space.Stedrick (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No objection here. As noted, a case for notability for this business might be possible. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually that sounds too much like WP:PLEASEDONT. This discussion should continue, hopefully for less than two weeks, and if the consensus is delete, then userfication to Jain's space is appropriate. JFHJr (㊟) 17:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The full name of the business seems to be "Luxor Writing Instruments". They make pens, and also distribute Parker Pen Company, Waterman pens, and Sharpie pens in India. [15] Not sure that any of this establishes encyclopedic significance for this business, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Alternatively, userify as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After searching as best I could, I couldn't find coverage indicating this subject passes either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Like Stu, I'll change my vote if sources that I missed come to light. JFHJr (㊟) 17:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - today marks 2 weeks since Jain.dhrj said "give me two weeks." Let's see what unfolds in the coming days. Stedrick (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company is mainly a distributer for the famous brands named in the article. And the price range is not from 5 to 4 million, but from 5 to 400.000. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus is clear here. Michig (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name Science

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like something dreamed up by the creator this morning. There are no references indicating that "Name Science" is something that actually exists. Since it's an apparently non-existent subject, there's no indication of notability. I can't believe there isn't a speedy category for this. Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references to be found on Google books and I can't find any articles relating to "name science". There are many articles related to meaning behind assigning a name to a baby, but I can't really find any that would be classified as scientific.--Stvfetterly (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing solid here, no evidence of notability, invented term. The single book reference is by Guy Gifford, and the page creator is Guy3fire so we probably have a CoI / self-advertisement situation here. At best merge to Onomastics but not sure there are any facts worth merging, nor is a redirect justified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources: the only source seems to be from the person who made it up. Issues with NPOV as well (this is hardly a science). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find evidence to suggest that this is other than author promoting content that exists only in his own book, the only given reference. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Guy3fire (talk · contribs) claims to be the author of the sole reference, a book apparently published by something called 3Fire publishing, on his user page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. No arguments presented for keeping this. Arguments for deletion based on notability are convincing. Michig (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

York University Sailing and Windsurfing Club

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN organisation, a university sailing club. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability is suggested by the article and no sourcing in place. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Blue Square. The article provides no evidence of notability and no sources that could verify any kind of notability. HotshotCleaner (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have updated the article with several references to independent sources. Please revisit the article before making a final decision on deletion.--InfiniteJest3154 (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW DELETE; no point in wasting further time on this one. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evanston Township High School Friday Songs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that this list of songs played at an Illinois high school is notable; it's significant to the alumni and other people at the school, but I find no coverage of the Friday Songs in reliable sources independent of the subject. A Tumblr link and a personal weblog are not reliable sources per Wikipedia's definition, unfortunately. bonadea contributions talk 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, per nom. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7 by Fæ (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dey's Medical

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy delete. Nominator left this edit summary while creating this AfD: No noteable content and does not meet wiki requirements. Seems to me to merit speedy deletion as making no minimal claim to importance. Full article text: Dey's Medical is a pharmaceutical and ayurvedic medicine manufacturer in India. It is headquartered in Kolkata. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Breimyr

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, no reason given. Football has yet to feature at a fully-professional level therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 11:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 11:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:N. Ghits are stray mentions in football-centric news reports, primary, social media, a bit in football blogs. Only 18 and seems to have some promise, so I could see him achieving actual notability in future (and not just a technical "meets NFOOTY" characterization). But not there yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as a non-notable player who has yet to play in a fully professional league. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Mentoz86 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. As far as I know, this match is the closest he has gotten a first-team appearence, when he warmed the bench in the First Round replay, and thereby fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, even in Norway. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --MuZemike 19:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant 10 diamond

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article that fails WP:N for lack of reliable independent sources containing significant discussion of this product. The only sources cited, or discoverable, are press-release-derived and otherwise promotional material. (Note: I normally would have prodded this; but another version of the article, at the title "The most brilliant diamond in the world", had a prod declined, so I felt compelled to bring it here. The creation of that version was the only WP edit of User:Yairshimansky, whose name matches that of the jeweller who sells these diamonds.) Deor (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I recognize the problem of the cut-and-paste move that created two versions of this article, one at The most brilliant diamond in the world (now a redirect) and one at the title above. If this article is kept, I'll request a histmerge; if it's deleted, I'll request a G6 speedy of the original article. Deor (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a History merge tag to this article, to merge history to it from the "The most brilliant diamond in the world" article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the histmerge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After doing a little searching on my own, I have to agree with the nom. In this instance, the only "sources" are not independent, and regardless would not likely quality as reliable sources per WP:RS. The links might be ok for some info, but not to establish the notability. In this case, I just don't see any independent discussion. No newspapers or other mainstream media discussing it. It would appear that the article is more of an effort to generate buzz than to educate. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This following source, BRILLIANT 10 DIAMOND TOUTED AS "WORLD'S MOST BRILLIANT CUT" from The Israel Diamond Institute, a non-profit company, does not appear to be sourced from a press release. Note the part of the article that reads, "Shimansky explained to DiamondWorld.net that his diamond design,..." appears to be from an interview of sorts. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also, recently added to the article:

• "Shimansky Diamond Showroom and Workshop" from Cape Town Magazine, an article that doesn't appear to be sourced from a press release.

• "New Shimansky range is a gem". Independent Online News. October 25, 2011. Retrieved December 21, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

• "Vera raves over SA diamonds". Independent Online News. May 23, 2011. Retrieved December 21, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

• "Shimansky plans to sparkle in Asia". Independent Online News. December 21, 2011. Retrieved December 21, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

• Thiel, Gustav (December 21, 2011). "Diamonds are a girl's breast friend..." Independent Online News. Retrieved December 21, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent coverage has been found. I also found this little gem. [16] Dream Focus 19:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – to the new article I created, Yair Shimansky. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm still not seeing any non-promotional sources. The Cape Town Magazine, seems, from the information on the site, to be an online "magazine" to which local businesses pay a fee to become "partners", in return becoming the subjects of "articles" and notices on the site. The Independent Online News articles also appear to be puff pieces and do not specifically mention the Brilliant 10. The Cape Town Diamond Museum cited by Dream Focus just happens to be located in the Shimansky shop. If this article is deleted, I will also be nominating Yair Shimansky for deletion. Deor (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Noted, that several of the Independent Online News sources are specifically about Yair Shimansky, which is why, after doing all that research, I created the Yair Shimansky article, as the person is more extensively covered in sources. I disagree with the various coverage of Yair Shimansky in Independent Online News being categorized under a blanket description of all being "puff pieces". Also, please don't forget to actually check for the availability of reliable sources for the topic "Yair Shimansky," rather than automatically nominating that article for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to page Diamond cut? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would presumably be to Diamond cut#Modified brilliants, but per WP:WEIGHT I'd be loath to merge any information about this particular variant to that section, particularly since all the available sources seem merely to parrot Shimansky's own account of the cut's wonderful features. Deor (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETED by Vejvančický (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) postdlf (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries in 1800

~~(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)~~

An indiscriminate, incomplete and probably incompletable list based on someone's idea of what makes a "country". This is difficult even nowadays (see List of sovereign states) and even harder 211 years ago. The list includes an Emirate and a Colony but doesn't include any Principalities, Duchies or Empires etc. And why the year 1800 in particular? Unlike the entries in Lists of countries and territories this is uninformative, unencyclopaedic and unusable. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. andy (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination withdrawn - I just spotted that it duplicates material in List of sovereign states in 1800 andy (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This article is significant coverage. This article (which should actually link here) is borderline significant, as is this one and this one (though this is just meeting minutes). This article just mentions her name. This one is just passing, as is this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one. This one is just election results, giving only a mention of her name. This one doesn't provide enough preview to know whether it's significant or not, but the headline leads me to believe it would be at least marginally significant. With the one article being no-question significant coverage, and two (plus the meeting minutes) being borderline significant, that tips the scales into notability here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindell Penn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be of interest to you that this person is in no Google Scholar articles, and only one Google Book; one that isn't independent of subject Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural Keep~~ - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This vote should be retracted, as it's clear the editor hasn't even bothered to read the article, and is voting to keep a load of cruft on this Wiki. This article, and all the other ones nominated in a similar matter, are permastubs created in a fly-by-night manner and should have been deleted years ago. And it's by no means offensive to say local news doesn't count. There are many items that are required in policy and/or supported by the consensus of editors. What's offensive is your procedural keep vote Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also above comment about lack of Google Books or Scholar articles Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She only served for six years, and coverage was pretty minimal. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Coverage does not appear to be minimal, refer to the current sourcing in the article, which is rather extensive. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~procedural~~ strong keep this is a bad faith nomination and no real effort has been made to verify if this councilwoman is notable or not. I reckon she is, as all the others have been. If not I think a creation of the Richmond City Council (Richmond, California) history section would be cool to incubate some of these, but if they are notable on their own a stub is ok until it is expanded. I am going to nominate them all for rescue.Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN spectacularly. No evidence of any notability. The 'procedural keep' votes seem bizarre, unless there is some history between these editors that I'm unaware of! Sionk (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person meets WP:GNG, per coverage in reliable sources. See Google News search link below:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, there aren't any sources in those links you provide to show if she's notable... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission the is mentioned in those sources and they are many, and that meets the WP:Notability requirement for WP:GN General Notability, and per WP:NRVE the mere existence of sources is enough to quantify keeping the article, whether or not it is sourced at all in article. You should note that Jimmy Wales himself had a helluva time having an article about a local one-location restaurant in South Africa being kept under similarly narrow-minded deletionism oriented worldview or should I say wikiview.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I think you've got too much skin in this game. Let it go, and stop throwing around the loaded term "narrow-minded deletionism". Or start another meaningless ANI thread, or a thread on Jimbo's talk page. Do whatever you want Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count 6 comments by Purpliebackpack in defense of his own nomination, and he's accusing others of "having too much skin in the game"?!?!? That excludes the badgering comments he made on my talk page in defense of this set of poorly conceived nominations... Seriously: make your nomination, state your evidence, and let it go... There are some real "ownership" issues showing in these nominations, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reference recently removed from the article by the nominator of this article for deletion:

"Tragedy Inspires Action in Richmond: Penn Spearheads Plan to Improve the City's Rental Home Inspection Program". West County Times. April 11, 2005. Retrieved December 11, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Please consider leaving references in place while articles are in AfD. Removal of them appears to possibly be biased toward your stance to delete this article. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Northamerica, the part that goes into detail about Penn, if there is one, is behind a paywall and therefore unacceptable as a reference Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not aware of an entry point in WP:V called WP:PAYWALL? Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got to agree with that one. The info just needs to be verifiable, not necessarily easily and conveniently with a weblink. However, the second 'bibliography' source is definitely only a mention of Penn's name on a list of councillors standing for re-election - not worthy of a 'bibliography', which is normally a list of books! I'm interested to know what source says Penn was the shortest ever Richmond council member. If that was attributable to a reliable source I may be convinced that, overall, Penn begins to creep close to being 'notable' in WP terms... Sionk (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does being the shortest person on a generally non-notable list make her notable? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been reported, it may have indicated a slightly more in depth report about Penn. But considering it has now been removed from the article, my original 'vote' for deletion still stands. Sionk (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on WP or the content of any such article. Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural closure (see below) ~~Keep~~ I added three references, topic satisfies WP:GNG. It is easy to find quality references, use whatever tags you want, significant, in-depth, WP:GNG, reliable. Even if the absence of notability were stipulated, there is no attempt being made here to refute the possibility of a merge, so as Carrite says in different words, this nomination is in the wrong venue. That said, I suspect that the current article would fit better as part of List of Richmond City Council councilmembers. I just needed to see one article from Havana, Cuba about this council to know that these people are far out of the norm in the US. IMO we do not have a problem at Wikipedia of under-coverage of the Richmond City Council. Unscintillating (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisted to enable further discussion, potentially including discussion about the new references.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: Even though a few "references" have been found, I still believe this article should be deleted. The basic argument is that because she was quoted in the local paper, she's notable. Millions of people have been quoted in their local papers, and they're obviously not worthy of inclusion. This person isn't either. This person wasn't mayor of her city, nor is her city a major city. So she fails WP:POLITICIAN. She hasn't done anything earth-shattering or won any awards. So she fails WP:ANYBIO Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another reference has been removed from the article here. The edit comment to explain the removal is "Bibliography: per WP:GNG source does not 'address the subject directly in detail' " This particular article has a picture of Mindell Penn made by a Chronicle staff photographer on the day of the election, and Mindell Penn is one of the three incumbents being referenced in the title of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's here why? The place to discuss content disputes, which that appears to be, is on the article's talk page. But, for reference, I support Sionk's decision to remove the reference. Tangential mentions here and there are not enough to justify passing GNG, and even if this article does pass GNG, that doesn't mean it automatically has to be kept Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if an article meets GNG it must be kept as long as someone advocates for keep. All notable topics have a place here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nosir. That is not the case. Just because an article meets GNG (and by the way, this one doesn't really), doesn't mean an automatic keep if only one person votes yes Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A topic can meet WP:GNG and not satisfy WP:N, it says so right in WP:GNG. However, as per WP:N, only extreme cases of failing notability are met with deletion. In the current case, there is not even an argument being advanced to explain a case for non-notable or any other kind of deletion, not even WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the part about it failing the specific guidelines of ANYBIO and POLITICIAN Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the previous logic this topic is non-notable because it does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects). But what our guideline at WP:N says is, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below... A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." And being non-notable is not by itself a cause for deletion. There is no argument to be made that this case is "extreme", so even if we were to stipulate that this topic fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:POLITICIAN, we are still left with a nomination in the wrong venue. The nominator has removed two more references from the article. I am changing my !vote to Procedural closure. Unscintillating (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, discussing the notability of a topic as part of a deletion discussion is exactly what AFD is for. Furthermore, your bringing astronomical objects, and your !vote of "procedural closure" both are nonsensical and indicate a lack of familiarity with the AFD process. The references I removed were inappropriate to the article as they could neither be properly integrated nor were non-trivial Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Unscintillating, removing refernces is disruptive to an AfD and this topic has been demonstrated as notable by the sources that have shown.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged on my talk page to have another look at this. I agree that there are now more references in the article, but that doesn't help. All I see is routine announcements of winning a place on a local council and resigning. [17] is something different, but the subject is mentioned only once in passing. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." WP:GNG explains "significant coverage" as follows: " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The point is that whether you define routine as "non-extraordinary", or routine as "automatically covered", you make no case for failing WP:N when you use the term "routine". Also, your position continues to ignore that, as per WP:ATD and WP:N, we don't delete articles with encyclopedic material just because the topic is non-notable. Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I, on the other hand, see nice improvement of the sourcing and believe this is a biography that passes muster under General Notability Guidelines. No one would argue that this is definitive — it's a short piece on a minor politician. Still, detail is accurate and verifiable and the piece as it stands is a basis for further work as the subject's career progresses and more material becomes available. Procedural objections as to the form of the initial nomination, but I'm striking my Procedural Keep recommendation and changing it to a full Keep based on the work done by Unscintillating and others. Wikipedia is better with this piece than without it. Carrite (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin note that editor struck out Keep vote above, and replaced it with Keep vote here Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator note that I actually upgraded a "Procedural Keep" to a full "Keep," debolding and striking the earlier incarnation, as appropriate. Also note that the nominator, including this statement of the obvious, has made SEVENTEEN comments about this one nomination. And counting... Carrite (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry if I refactored the bolded comment above on accident, it's hard figuring out where the nominator's signature ends with its three lines of code...[reply]

So? Nothing wrong with debating editors' assertions, especially if they're unfounded. Nothing wrong with having a signature with three links of at least 16 characters. I fixed the signature (and that's 18) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was pinged on my talk page to take another look. Despite a couple of mentions in regional media, mostly of the "so-and-so was elected" or "so-and-so resigned" variety, I still find her to be insufficiently notable for inclusion here. My "delete" !vote stands. --MelanieN (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked to comment again but strongly believe the anti-deletion campaign are wasting everyone's time. As well as repeatedly redlinking another non-notable councillor they are constantly re-adding non-notable mentions, and repeatedly describing a news item archived from the San Fransisco Chronicle as 'national' coverage. In effect, because of Penn's unusual name, if there was any coverage of any note it could be discovered reasonably easily. Most of the citations refer to Penn being elected (that is a given for councillors) and resigning for family reasons. Her only noticeable actions appear to be co-sponsoring an ordinance and improving the city's rental home inspection program. For 6 years service that seems to be a miserable record.Sionk (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just added a new source with some information that I believe gives yet even more credibility to her notability.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment: It's been a week, and we're right back where we started. The only change is that Carrite moved his keep vote. Most people who voted delete reaffirmed their vote. I personally believe this is still a gots-to-go, as this person's "references" are still generally trivial, and it still fails ANYBIO and POLITICIAN. Unfortunately, it looks like we're headed for a meaningless no-consensus Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note the preceding comment was moved below a more recent one and that should not imply that this debate has been free of discussion.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion..."retrenchment" would be the proper word. Since the relist, the only comments have been editors reaffirming previous positions. No one has changed their mind, no one new has come to the discussion. So, yeah, it kinda has since the relist Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment it has not been free of comments since the delisting not matter what my counterpart here is claiming. In fact I made a comment on having found and implemented new material today.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if you looked at what I said, you'd have noticed I said there were no new votes, not no new comments Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "vote" is not present in this sentence "Discussion..."retrenchment" would be the proper word. Since the relist, the only comments have been editors reaffirming previous positions. No one has changed their mind, no one new has come to the discussion. So, yeah, it kinda has since the relist". Therefore that statement is false.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...now my statement is false...because somebody has voted delete Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – a list of current references in the article, for an objective analysis of sources:
a b c d e Cecilia M. Vega (June 1, 2005). "Richmond. Councilwoman says she will resign". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. p. B.5. Retrieved 2011-12-15. "Councilwoman Mindell Lewis Penn...will resign at the end of the month...move to Detroit to be with her elderly mother. Penn, 60, was first elected...in 1999 and re-elected in November."
a b c Finances, Jobs, Safety Top Issues in Richmond Race, J. Douglas Allen-Taylor, Berkeley Daily Planet, 20-08-2004, access date 23-12-2011
"News Archives - sacbee.com. Urban League board elected". Sacramento Bee. nl.newsbank.com. November 5, 1991. p. B3. Retrieved 2011-12-15. "Mindell Penn has been elected to a second term as chairwoman of the Sacramento Urban League board of directors. Penn, administrator of small business affairs for Pacific Gas and Electric Co..."
"Rosie the Riveter Memorial Project History". US National Park Service. Rosie the Riveter Trust. Retrieved 2011-12-20. "panel...formed...on January 16, 1998. The Rosie the Riveter Selection Panel consists of...businesswoman Mindell Penn..."
"Vision and strategic plan". US National Park Service. Rosie the Riveter Trust. June 11, 2005. pp. 20-21. Retrieved 2011-12-20. "She currently serves as First Vice-President on the BWOPA State Board of Directors, the Contra Costa County Community College Board of Trustees, and the Rosie the Riveter Trust Board of Directors. In 2002, she retired from Pacific Gas and Electric Company as Director of Government Relations, Contra Costa County."
a b c d e Meredith May, Chronicle staff writer (November 4, 1999). "Politics take an unusual turn in Richmond. Consultant's iron grip collapses". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. Retrieved 2011-12-10. "The most popular candidate, newcomer Mindell Penn, wore a power-red blazer in campaign mailers with her picture above the slogan, 'My vote will never be for sale.' "
"City contests for Contra Costa County, CA". League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. December 6, 2004. Retrieved 2011-12-16.
"CC01MAR2005.pdf". City of Richmond. March 1, 2005. p. 2. Retrieved 2011-12-18. "Consent calendar...ORDINANCE – regarding the Slavery Era Disclosure Act and disclosure and divestment of investment earnings from City-sponsored Pension Funds or Investment Funds from financial and insurance institutions that benefit from international investment in slavery – Second Reading – Councilmember Penn and Viramontes (620-6513)."
a b Jason B. Johnson, Chronicle staff writer (March 12, 2005). "EAST BAY. Firms that profited from slavery reviewed. Richmond, Oakland consider early step to seeking reparations.". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. Retrieved 2011-12-20. "Some activists are hopeful these laws may one day help secure reparations for African Americans."
Jason B. Johnson, San Francisco Chronicle (March 21, 2005). "2 California cities look at profits from slavery. Movement may lead to restitution payments". Salt Lake City: Deseret News. Retrieved 2011-12-18. "Richmond Councilwoman Maria Viramontes, who proposed the measure along with fellow Councilwoman Mindell Penn, said the city's new law was inspired by the events in Chicago..."
San Francisco Chronicle (March 21, 2005). "Firms that profited from slavery reviewed". South Carolina: Beaufort Gazette. Retrieved 2011-12-18.
"CC05JUNE21.pdf". City of Richmond. June 21, 2005. p. 2. Retrieved 2011-12-18. "Councilmember Penn announced that this would be her last meeting as a City Councilmember."

Additional references

Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle staff writer (November 3, 2004). "Richmond. Richmond sticks with 3 council members". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. p. B8. Retrieved 2011-12-15. "Mindell Lewis Penn waits along with...Chronicle photo by..." (picture of Mindell Penn on election day 2004)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that two of the delete !votes were removing references from the article, here are two removed with the edit comment, "(Additional references: rm trivial references that have no relevance to the article's content)". IMO, this edit comment is incorrect because (1) trivial references are those such as mentions in a phone book and anything that is not trivial counts as part of significant coverage, and (2) one of the sources is part of the sourcing for the article. A third reference has been restored, but PBP has yet to apologize for claiming that it is ok to remove references published behind paywalls. Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Tragedy Inspires Action in Richmond: Penn Spearheads Plan to Improve the City's Rental Home Inspection Program". West County Times. April 11, 2005. Retrieved December 11, 2011. Detroit stepped up inspections and increased landlord fees to pay for them, and Penn returned to Richmond determined that her city should do the same. She is "wholeheartedly embracing" changing the city's rental... {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Nanci L. Valcke (December 23, 2001). "USFilter beats out EBMUD". San Francisco Business Times. American City Business Journals. Retrieved 2011-12-18. The plant is 'a very large asset to the city,' said Councilwoman Mindell Lewis Penn, one of USFilter's five votes. 'Giving up that asset was a big consideration for me.'

I will not apologize for removing references that cannot be properly integrated into the article and do not amount to more than trivial coverage. Unscintillating has a history of placing these junk references in articles in faulty attempts to save them Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – References from reliable sources serve to qualify topic notability, while the removal of them serves to hide topic notability from others considering this topic's notability. I consider it rather poor form for a nominator of an article for deletion to remove them. After all, if the article were to be deleted regardless, then the added references would be too. New references can allow for the expansion of Wikipedia articles. Removal of them isn't useful to the project. Also note that per WP:BASIC, "trivial coverage" that you assert may be used to qualify topic notability per a quantity of stated trivial coverage. I also don't view this paywalled link as trivial: [18], as it appears to be entirely about Mindell Penn and her plan to improve Richmond'd rental home inspection system. Paywalled sources are acceptable, per WP:PAYWALL. Please leave coverage from reliable sources in place. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it to be more than routine local coverage, and besides, just because this is at AfD doesn't entitle anyone to place a bunch of bad references in an article. Also note that I am not the only person to remove content during this AfD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per GNG, it is significant coverage if it is more than trivial, and as such it is. Routine non-trivial material is significant coverage and as it is stated in GNG it meets GNG. If something meets GNG it is therefore notable as it has references to meet GNG. There is no such thing as a bad references. There are relevant references to the topic and that is what I see has been added.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You simply saying that they're non-trivial does not make them non-trivial Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine coverage of a local politician in a small city. None of these events are notable individually or collectively, nor is her career anything special accept perhaps for her ability to attract local press coverage. The criterion for notability -- the true criterion -- is what is worth covering in a comprehensive encyclopedia . Local references do not make for notability. What would amount to notability is extensive significant national coverage from outside her region. Or a national level award. Or a notable book or film by or about her. Any number of minor things does not add up to something major. Sponsoring any number of local bills or political acts is not the equivalent of sponsoring even a single national one. As an analogy, a long career in the minor leagues is not the same as even a very short career in the majors. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The personal opinion of what makes a small town politician should be disregarded by the closing admin. As it ignores the fact that the references are in reliable sources. The San Francisco Chronicle is not a "local" reference. It's a major newspaper. And the city is not small. It has over 100,000 people and is a major industrial and port city. The common outcome for politicians for this city is to keep.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you fail to note that the notability guideline you are using is WP:IAR. Your entire post is an opinion essay, and a not-especially useful one since you don't relate your position to the existing standards. As a paperless encyclopedia with no known limits for server space, we don't restrict ourselves to Elite-opedia, we carry topics that are encyclopedic, not just those that are "major". You try the same word "routine" that has been attempted by others, but the answer is the same, WP:GNG considers "routine" coverage to be just fine, in fact each piece of routine coverage adds to notability. Like the rest of your post that floats free of policy considerations, your delete !vote does not explain why the material here should not be merged, as per WP:N and our WP:Deletion policy at WP:ATD, policy that WP:PRESERVEs the good-faith contributions of other editors and the content of the encyclopedia. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Unscintillating, what his "notability guideline" amounts to is using POLITICIAN and ANYBIO instead of GNG. There is more than personal opinion behind his vote. This article may pass GNG, but it's clear to a number of editors that this article is nowhere close to meeting either of those. GNG doesn't really consider routine coverage to lead to passage of GNG; consider that elementary schools that often get routine coverage are nearly always deleted. Deleting an article on a minor City Councilwoman who was never mayor should be routine cleanup, and it by no means turns us in to "Elite-pedia". Note to closing admin: The only editor who has added a new opinion since the relist has voted delete Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't pick and choose which notability criteria you want to use. If an article meets any of them, they are notable. If they are notable they should be kept, because if an article meets the notability criteria it should be kept. Anything said to the contrary is a misrepresentation of policy and is personal opinion and nothing else. What GNG "doesn't" do as you stated is your opinion and not the general consensus nor literal definition of GNG. GNG states basically that one one end a topic may have two in depth reliable sources or on the other end many routine sources, although much more are needed. In Penn's case we are in the middle of that continuum and based solely on GN and the sources presented we should keep. The comment about schools is irrelevant per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and schools are not comparable to general notability nor BLPs. Your opinion that she is minor or that she was never mayor is irrelevent. Most people with a wikipedia article were never elected to office and were never mayor of anything, so that proves nothing. The sources on Ms. Penn however show general notability because "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The sources clearly demonstrate more than trivial coverage.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and Unscintillating seem to forget that specific guidelines exist for a reason and that it's not OK to just ignore them... Also, just because something passes GNG by a hair doesn't mean an auto keep Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, and if by the nominators own admission it meets GNG we should speedy close and keep. However it meets GNG by much more than a hair, GNG states that significant coverage does not have to be the main topic of an article, it simply must not be a trivial passing mention. The sources for this article meet that numerous times over.

Comment one last thing the nominator cited the following for deleting: "Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough.". The nominator themself have admitted that the topic is notable per GNG. The datedness of the article is not a measure of notability and regardless has been thoroughly updated. The sources are independent as they are third parties unrelated to the subject. That is the measure of independence. The San Francisco Chronicle, Beaufort Gazette, Sacramento Bee, and Berkeley Daily Planet for example are not owned by Penn, nor is she employed by them. They are also not local, as none of them are the Richmond Globe or Richmond Confidential or West County Times. Although every newspaper has a local market she has received more than trivial coverage in newspapers throughout the state and even out of state. So the politician is notable and up to date which are all entirely independent of the subject. The logic for deletion by the nominator is therefore incorrect and flawed and the article should be kept or at very least merged into the city council article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

>

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that this meets WP:FICTION, which is just another way of saying that it meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster à la Riseholme

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional recipe. Fails WP:N, no significant coverage in independent sources. Article is mainly comprised of summary of the novels. Sources are negligible and rely on a recipe by Nigella Lawson Paul75 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is not a "fictional recipe" per WP:HOAX, but rather it's a fictional plot device in the form of a recipe. Unusually, this has then generated secondary coverage by gastronomes as a discussion of the fictional source. The literary source, Mapp and Lucia, is a well-known and clearly notable series. We have a great many fiction articles that suffer badly from excessive in-universe discussion. This is one of the rare exceptions where some in-universe matter is actually discussed by acceptable external sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no external sources though - the sole reference for the entire subject matter is a Nigella Lawson recipe Paul75 (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article describes, clearly and accurately, the sources of this recipe, which is an important element in the original novels and which has, as stated in the article, notably been reused by other authors. There is no Hoax or deception involved here, simply good Encyclopedic description of a notable literary device. Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Used by one other author, not authors as you claim, who wrote a sequel to the novels after the death of BensonPaul75 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The usual criterion in cases of articles about things in a fictional world is whether they then take on a life outside that created by the original author (the Lilliput principle). I do think that the current article makes that case, and the material would not fit easily into the other related articles. --AJHingston (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andy Dingley et al. Fictional plot points can be notable, and with two reliable sources, I appears to be so. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. It furnishes an important and recurring plot point in a series of notable novels and as such has led to published attempts by some cooks (who are themselves notable) to recreate it. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with all of the above. This seems an important part of a series of fairly well-known books.21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxdlink (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion outweigh the arguments for retention given, namely that the sources given do not sufficient establish notability here. --MuZemike 19:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hart

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as WP:WPBIO, WP:N, and I are concerned, this is a csd article deletion; HOWEVER, in the spirit of debate and in allowing for the article's creator to defend the work I have decided to donate an ounce of mercy and run this through afd channels to allow all parties privy to the deletion to debate here to their hearts content. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is a more general discussion of notability of criminal investigators at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Notability of the protagonist in true small town crime stories and at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability of Crime victims and perpetrators.. and notability of investigators and their work. PPdd (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

Per WP:BIO - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability".
There are multiple independent sources (almost SEVENTY). Most if not all have nontrivial coverage. Hart is either the direct subject of the story or is an important part of the story, as both the supervising investigator and an active investigator. Or he is cited for his expert opinion and knowledge, in an informative and interesting way, and thus non in a trivial way. In stories in which he appears in a less significant way than these, like in the stories where he is interviwed, his appearance is still not trivial because he is not just named as person who happens to be on the street and interviewed while doing the story, but is a person chosen to be interviwed for his knowledge of the story, which is often the only source, and this is still not a trivial mention. Here are just a few examples from these categories of multiple sources in which Hart appears in a nontrivial way. -
In the "Police Say Gang Crackdown is Working" story, Hart is the one doing the "saying". The story is about Hart's opinions, and thus about Hart.
In sensational crime stories, Hart is the Sergeant with knowledge of the case being interviewed. In an a murder mystery investigation story, both the supervising investigator and the active investigator are central characters, the opposite of trivial for the story. In Redwood City the Sergeant is both the supervising investigator and a participating investigator[19].
In stories on police or gang activities, Hart is the only or one of the experts whose opinion is being reported, the opposite of being trivial. This is not a trivial random opinion or a person on the street, but of the story's topic expert.
In other stories about what is going on in the area, he is a principal commentator generating the the story by his comments.
Any one of these points alone is sufficient with the multiple sources for it to establish notability under WP:BIO. When this AFD was started, the article was a single sentence stub article. Some or all of the comments and opinions below were made before the article was expanded with line item sources. PPdd (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You keep referring to Hart as the lead investigator in the cases. The articles you provided do not support this as the case. You may be missing the true role of a Sergeant/supervisor in a small PD such as RCPD. The lead investigator would be one of the 10 detectives in the department and the lead would be determined according to the rotation roster or department specialization. In a small PD it would not be unusual for a Sergeant to take the duties of a media interface, this would be in contrast to a larger PD such as the LAPD where media access is funneled through a Media Relations Section. Hence, questions might be answered by someone such as Hart or the other Sergeant in the RCPD. Granted Hart would oversee the work of other detectives, but would hardly be in field or investigative role. reddogsix (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reddogsix is incorrect that Hart is not both the supervising investigator and an active investigator in the case. He/she is incorrect that "Hart would oversee the work of other detectives, but would hardly be in field or investigative role". "The Police Sergeant in Redwood City... both supervises and personally perform investigations. Neither the supervisor nor an active investigator is a "trivial" part of an investigation story, and Hart is both. PPdd (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The pdf is interesting; however; it is a HR document that lacks the percentage for each duty. The reality of a supervisory role is that one does moves farther from the daily work and is involved in the administrative roles within a PD. I would also bet that the detectives would take umbrage with your comment that the Sergeant is "brainwork of a detective investigation." Regardless, I do not see the "references" you have provided meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish WP:NOTABILITY. I have added 5 or 6 links to articles cited by the author. None of the articles provide coverage of Hart or an in-depth discussion of his role in the case - he is only quoted in the articles. One will have to access these articles at [20] since the author of the article has taken it upon himself to remove the links to the actual article in favor of just using the article titles. reddogsix (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no actual coverage of the subject. Location (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location, which of the 70 news stories did you read to make your factual assertion that there is no actual coverage? 98.234.235.21 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fair to assume from the titles given, as well as the absence of biographical details in the article, that the news stories are not covering Sean Hart... they are covering various non-notable crimes. Location (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage of the subject in the sources. At the time of your comment, the article only had one sentence. I substantially added to the article from the sources, and put a couple of quotes from the sources to the references to aid in you hopefully reconsidering in response to your stated concern. PPdd (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:BIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If someone can show me that Mr Hart is the only investigating officer who, single handled, solved or worked on in a significant fashion all these crimes, then yes. But I suspect Officer Hart is part of a team, a team who has investigated a work load of jobs not significantly larger than any other team covering a similar geographic would cover, and he is perhaps just the media spokesman or local go-to-guy for the media when it comes to covering law enforcement. I suspect a senior sergeant in the NYPD's anti-gang unit is often vocal amongst the media to promote the task force and press a harsh anti-gang policy. I would not say that this makes him notable compared to the thousands of other team leaders in police stations across the globe who deal with crime to this level. Last time I checked, several UK police officers would have 15-20 crimes in their drop each week. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH, Hart is the Sergeant, so is person in charge of the whole investigation. He is in numerous news stories as the main subject or as an important subject, and this is the crtierion at Wikipedia, whether or not it is fair to the other hard working investigators who cannot establish notability. He is the sergeant assigned to lead media sensational stories, which in itself is notable. He is also notable for reasons state in the article that have not yet been addressed by anyone on this AFD discussion. PPdd (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a sergeant, a very junior officer. It would be simply ludicrous to have articles on every detective sergeant in the world simply because they lead investigations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. A Sgt is, with respect to Sgts out there, a junior officer. Even his unit will be lead by a Lieutenant, with the division or what-have-you under a captain. The city holds only 76,000-odd inhabitants so it's not even going to have a notable department. Let alone one individual officer who is the spokesperson for their media. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The size of a city is not a standard for notability in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Being a junior vs. senior officer is not a standard for notability. Hart is not the spoekperson to the media of that department. 00:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not implying that city size makes notability however a notable 4,000,000 person town may have a notable police department with notable individuals, but a 400 person town (for example) will not have a police force or individual of separate notability unless they do something extraordinary, which this individual does not seem to have done so. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior police officer who merely appears to act as a media spokesman for the police. No particular notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is established or not based on citation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not on rank, or being relatively junior or senior within a department. PPdd (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but of course it is. Even the chief of a small town police department would be unlikely to meet notability requirements. A sergeant? No chance. Detectives investigate crimes - it's their job. Crimes are usually reported in the local media. So naturally the names of detectives are frequently mentioned in the local media. That doesn't make them notable. A detective such as Jack Slipper, who led investigations into major cases of national importance, who was once a household name throughout his country, and who held the highest possible rank for an operational detective in the largest and most famous police force in his country, is notable. A sergeant with a small town police department that most people have never heard of who investigates local crimes is not. However well-known he may be in his own town or even the surrounding area is irrelevant. If such people were notable then any police officer who had been mentioned a few times in a local paper would be notable, which is simply ridiculous. My local paper, for example, mentions and/or quotes the sergeant in charge of our local police station in pretty much every issue. It also mentions the mayor in pretty much every issue. That's what local papers do. It certainly doesn't make either of them notable. If a national paper did it, that would be different, but not a local paper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Mercury, San Francisco Chronicle, and Oakland Tribune are not "small town" papers. PPdd (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they are still "local" papers! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment can we establish that this gentleman is the sole creator and instigator of these media comments? Can we establish that this officer is not a selected spokesperson of a murch larger team? Can we establish that any of these events are notable themselve sin a way that would make his and his team's investigation of it notable? Can we establish that this officer has, single handedly, solved any of these crimes in a way that suggests notability (i.e. above and beyond the crime solving that goes on in every police force in the world)? If there is a yes to any of these it would suggest notability, but as far as I can discern there is not. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your third question, yes we can establish notability of the events. They were in multiple and widespread news story series over a period of time, which establishes notability by the sufficent (but not necessary) criteria in WP:BIO. Your first two and fourth questions are not necessary per WP:BIO standards. Being a significant part (the investigation supervisor and active investigator) in multiple news stories about an investigation establishes notablity per WP:BIO. PPdd (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not changed my keep opinion after reading trough the arguments here. Sean Hart passes WP:BIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An excellent example of what does not amount to notability. Detectives work on many homicide cases, local newspapers cover all homicides crimes in their area, someone in any department supervises the others, and someone in a department gives the press interviews. Normally none of these people are notable, any more than the victims or the perpetrators. There is no indication given or asserted that the subject here is personally responsible for the solution of the crimes, and even so this would not be notability, and more than the public prosector prosecuting the cases would be, or the local judge who hearts them, or the reporters on the papers who report them. This is all routine, and non-encyclopedic. Repeated citing as an expert by major national newspapers can establish someone as an expert, but in this case according to the quotations given, the only person calling him an expert is the person who prepared the press release for the city manager, ref.1, a thoroughly unreliable source if there ever was one. Notability in his profession could be many things: actually being a nationally known expert, having major awards at the national level, being president of his police officers association at the national or perhaps the state level, writing or being the subject of notable books or films. Or he could have in fact been the key investigator for multiple notable crimes, by the standards of having a Wikipedia article on them--or even for one really famous crime. None of these are the case. The discussion here shows the weakness of the GNG: if we use it we need to resort to the restrictive wording of significant coverage to exclude what clearly does not belong, and the actual guideline is the way we use "significant"--and the way we really use it is to include what we think should be included and exclude what should not. (In other words, we determine that the career is or is not notable, and interpret the sourcing to fit.) I personally no longer consider the GNG is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but has a very limited role as a rough guideline is subjects where we otherwise could not decide. It's use as a rule is obsolete, from the period where we needed some sort of crude rough-and=ready distinction without having to actually think about it. It's primitive, and we're beyond that point. Notable means being of interest to the readers of an encyclopedia, such that a reasonable person would look for information here. Our function is not assigning importance or distinction, but making an encyclopedia , and notability means what is worth including as a separate article for the benefit of the present and future English-reading users worldwide. He is not. Almost nobody not associated with him would think otherwise-the only person other than the contributor making a !keep vote does not explain their reasoning. This was however not a speedy--it does count as an assertion of importance, and I do not consider it specifically promotional in the usual way. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus is that notability has not been demonstrated. Michig (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Loftus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Article largely written by the subject. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I didn't find any better reliable, third party sources substantially covering this subject. He appears to fail WP:BASIC requirements. JFHJr (㊟) 06:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delelte –Keep the article. It's reliable. And he's an important figure. If John did add something then I see nothing that doesn't describe him. There are Christians who would favor deletion simply because they disagree with him. User:Franky32 — Franky32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:26, 16 December 2011‎ (UTC).[reply]

Comment: how do you suppose this subject meets WP:GNG requirements of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources? Your position seems to be that the article is reliable, which doesn't speak to the question of notability. JFHJr (㊟) 07:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: John recently linked his article on his blog. It's likely that single purpose accounts will pop up during the deletion debate. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. The two blog references are useless and the google books link just proves that the book exists but does not establish notability. Zlqchn (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was surprised to see Loftus' name at an AfD discussion - I own two of his books, and assumed he would be clearly notable - but after searching I have regretfully concluded that he doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. There are plenty of blog reviews (including some by folk I know), but nothing that's not WP:SPS, and no news hits either.

I'd like to see this article kept; I think Loftus' story is a fascinating one, but he is, sadly, not notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Harizotoh9 said it perfectly - he doesn't meet even one of the notability criteria.Trishm (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delelte - Keep the article. John Loftus has actively contributed to the on-going discussion for the best part of 20-plus years regarding theism and atheism within contemporary society. He has written and edited a number of books on the subject of religious belief and its inconstant and inconsistent consequences for the modern community. Loftus's contribution to the discourse on the significant and essential debate on religion vis-a-vis irreligion meets the notability criteria for inclusion as a separate entry into Wikipedia. Further supporting details are to be added to the Wiki entry. Papalinton (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Papalinton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Your comment seems to get at WP:SCHOLAR and maybe WP:AUTHOR, but can you provide reliable third party sources that support notability? Otherwise, the last sentence there sounds a lot like WP:PLEASEDONT, which isn't a reason to keep. JFHJr (㊟) 04:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, all the references are blogs and other self published sources, making them useless in establishing notability. Zlqchn (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian football clubs in 2011–12 season

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate listcruft. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 04:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 09:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian football clubs in 2009–10 season

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate listcruft. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 09:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Notability not established and copyright violation concerns appear to be valid. Michig (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Pam Dick

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, by wp standards. Tagged as such for well over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No substantial coverage that I could find indicating this subject satisfies WP:GNG. I also found no substantial citations or critical review to pass under WP:AUTHOR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JFHJr (talk • contribs)
Comment. I just noticed that it looks, as well, like a copyvio of the only ref in the article. But I think it the better course to AfD it -- otherwise, if we blank it for the copyvio then someone could simply repair that violation, and we would still have to go through this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is mostly a copyvio, the article should be speedy deleted... JFHJr (㊟) 16:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query whether there might not be some benefit to snowing this AFD instead -- otherwise, it could just pop up again with in-text attribution, and we would be back to square one.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Zlqchn (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect - per WP:SNOW, and since the article has already been redirected. (non-admin closure) —SW— ^spout 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 797

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Baseball Watcher 00:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boeing; little media coverage, most info on GNews is speculation; archives reveal lots of typos (e.g. "Boeing 797" rather than "Boeing 767"). This is apparently Boeing's next project and I feel that we should only redirect it for the time being. HurricaneFan 25 — 00:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL (and WP:HAMMER?). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – I love the "mabye" in the first line. Oh, per WP:CRYSTAL. JFHJr (㊟) 06:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I heard it was going to have all the passengers seated on a carpet and fly soundlessly. Crystal Ball. The News link actually turns up a lot of "Boeing 797" citations in the New York Times ... dating between 1968 and 1980. Bet they didn't have a spellchecker. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This period was before there were any realy effective wordprocessors. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as above. It isn't only the NYT that suffers from typos - I bet the reference to widgets in the article should have read winglets. Spellcheckers do not eliminate every error. --AJHingston (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- New aeroplanes take a very long time to produce, but until there are reliable sources on what the plane will look like, and definite plans to proceed with it, this cannot help failing WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boeing Yellowstone Project--This appears to be written by someone who is simply fantasizing what Boeing's next all-new plane might look like. This is definitely an example of a crystal ball, and should be redirected to the yellowstone project page b/c that page is ACTUALLY sourced and gives readers a good idea of Boeing's future product plan. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Boeing Yellowstone Project: Agree with the above. This looks like pure fantasy. Boeing has studied its next new model under the name 737RS (Replacement Study) recently. Nothing all new in the very large airliner class as described in this 797 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced.TSRL (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete, consider speedy deletion~~ Redirect to Boeing 7x7 series. It appears that 797 is simply an expected name for a future Boeing project based solely on previous numbers. Most likely the next Boeing release and the most likely user of the 797 moniker is a 737 replacement which is nothing like the aircraft described in the article. Also, 700 to 800 miles per hour is extremely unlikely given the problems with transonic flight. SDY (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boeing or Boeing Yellowstone Project - Consists entirely of speculation, with no credible assertion of notability. Chris (talk | contribs) 20:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Boeing hasn't announced a 797 yet, and the airplane described in the article reads like WP:MADEUP (Transsonic flying wing? Seriously?) --Carnildo (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.